A26859:203
Richard Baxters answer to Dr. Edward Stillingfleet's charge of separation containing, I. some queries…
Richard Baxters answer to Dr. Edward Stillingfleet's charge of separation containing, I. some queries necessary for the understanding of his accusation, II. a reply to his letter which denieth a solution, III. an answer to his printed sermon : humbly tendered, I. to himself, II. to the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and the court of aldermen, III. to the readers of his accusation, the forum where we are accused.Richard Baxters answer to Dr. Edward Stillingfleet's charge of separation containing, I. some queries necessary for the understanding of his accusation, II. a reply to his letter which denyeth a solution, III. an answer to his printed sermon : humbly tendred, I. to himself, II. to the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and the court of aldermen, III. to the readers of his accusation, the forum where we are accused.
London: printed for Nevil Simmons, 1680
Letter: To the Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, Dean of St. Pauls, &c.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
§. 20. Serm. p. 17. [And so the several Churches of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia, if they had been united in one Kingdom, and governed by the same Authority, under the same Rules, might have been truly called the Lydian Church.]
Answ. 1. And is the Controversy de nomine, Whether they might be called the Lydian Church, when we expected a satisfactory explication de re? No doubt but a Church is so equivocal a word that many sort of Assemblies or Societies may be so called. I have told you of divers Senses, in which we are called a Church National, first Plea, pag. 251, &c. Either a Christian Kingdom, or else the Churches of a Heathen or a Christian King, as associated by agreement, may be called a National Church.
Answ. 1. And is the Controversy de nomine, Whether they might be called the Lydian Church, when we expected a satisfactory explication de re? No doubt but a Church is so equivocal a word that many sort of Assemblies or Societies may be so called. I have told you of divers Sences, in which we are called a Church National, first Plea, pag. 251, &c. Either a Christian Kingdom, or else the Churches of a Heathen or a Christian King, as associated by agreement, may be called a National Church.
2. What if they be united in one Kingdom, of a Heathen, Mahometan, or Arian King, and governed by his Regal Authority, under the same Rules which he sets them? Is this it that you mean in your Description? A King as such is not an Ecclesiastic Person, and therefore is not an essential part of a Church, unless as it is equivocally so called. And is it his Civil Laws for Church-Government that you mean, or the Clergies Canons, or God's Laws? The Greeks under the Turk are under one Prince, and governed by the same Civil Authority and Laws, and also are under one Patriarch, and by the Princes toleration are governed by the Ecclesiastic Authority and Laws, of another Species: If you confound these two Species, or tell us not which you mean in your Definition, it tendeth not to Edification.